It is explicitly that now. Bezos policy change back in 2025: "Billionaire Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos is directing the paper’s opinion section to focus on “personal liberties and free markets,” he announced Wednesday, leading to editorial page editor David Shipley’s resignation."[1]
> I like that you say that the opinion you quoted is uncharitable and then agree with it.
To people who disagree with you, your opinion is always trivially dismissed as "propaganda". This is neither insightful nor charitable, and applies universally to actors on any side of a political debate.
It kind of seems like you’re either arguing that there’s no such thing as propaganda, or that if a thing bothers someone then it can’t be propaganda.
If mandating an entire section of a national newspaper only write things that align with specific, prescribed values doesn’t rise to the definition of creating propaganda, nothing does.
> If mandating an entire section of a national newspaper only write things that align with specific, prescribed values doesn’t rise to the definition of creating propaganda, nothing does.
Well, OK. If you want to call the New York Times opinion section "propaganda", then I guess I can't argue.
This is a thread where we are discussing Jeff Bezos mandating the opinions in the opinions section of the Washington Post. Is “I have imagined your opinion about a different thing that we aren’t talking about!” supposed to be some sort of gotcha?
You called the Washington Post opinions section propaganda in another post. You seem to keep agreeing with the people that you’re responding to in a tone that sounds like you’re not agreeing with them.
It seems like we all agree about Jeff Bezos turning the options section into his own personal propaganda outlet and you just want to add that you think other folks are angry? And you want us to know that you’re imagining our opinions about other stuff?
> This is a thread where we are discussing Jeff Bezos mandating the opinions in the opinions section of the Washington Post.
No, "we" are not doing that. You are asserting this, and I am saying that you are confusing the completely historically normal function of a newspaper editorial staff with "propaganda". Newspaper owners have, since newspapers have existed, controlled the editorial slants of their papers.
The New York Times does similar things regularly -- but on the left -- and James Bennet famously was pushed out from the Times in 2020 for having the temerity to publish an editorial from a sitting US Senator, because that Senator said something right-wing, and AG Sulzberger (chairman of the Times) demanded his resignation for it.
Yes, you did. You used the word “characterizing” in reference to someone correctly using the word “propaganda” in the sense that it’s defined in the dictionary. You agreed that it’s propaganda insofar as when someone is using the word correctly, but you disagree because… “the left”… exists??
> they've always been engaged in what you're characterizing as propaganda
It seems like you’re arguing that “propaganda” isn’t so much a word that has a meaning that people agree on but rather a vibe that you, forums poster timr, are the arbiter of.
Like it’s pretty simple to look up a word and see that “The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause” applies in a way so plainly obvious that it would take extreme pains to craft an argument otherwise in good faith. Hence the unprompted change of topic to the opinions that you imagine in your head that other people have and “the left”.
Trying to change the topic of discussion with whataboutisms about “the left” won’t change what the word means, even if a person feels really, really strongly that it should or would.
That aside,
> No, "we" are not doing that.
Yes “we” are. Similar to how propaganda is a word that has a meaning, this is actually the thread about Jeff Bezos/WaPo and not a fanfic thread about me, no matter how badly an individual might want that to be otherwise. If you want to start a “What sort of stuff does everybody imagine jrflowers thinks or has opinions about?” discussion, the place to do that is at this link https://news.ycombinator.com/submit
> Propaganda as opposed to information (what one would naively expect from a newspaper).
> While a regular newspaper article would inform, propaganda would deceive with the intention of convincing people of some idea
We're talking about the opinion section. The editorial board writes opinions. You're fundamentally just upset that they switched from writing about opinions you prefer, to ones that you don't like, but they've always been engaged in what you're characterizing as propaganda.
As far as I can tell, "left wing" or "leftist" mostly doesn't refer to any coherent ideology or group of people, so much as acting as a catch-all term for things the ruling class doesn't like or people who they'd prefer not to have a voice in media
Yea except when everything that happens is the fault of "leftists" because they didn't vote for the same candidate, or maybe did but had some critiques of them. Sometimes "leftists" include anyone who has ever voted for a democrat, sometimes "the left" is only the people who dislike the mainstream of the democratic or labor or CDU or insert electorally-viable party here and of course then anything bad that happens to them is the fault of "the left". Sometimes "leftists" are weak and have no sense of reality and can't possibly accomplish anything in the real world, but sometimes "the left" is an omnipresent cabal that secretly rules society and can destroy the careers of celebrities. Who exactly this consists of, what their interests are, what real organizations represent those interests, and even what they want seems to vary a lot based on who you're asking and what point they're trying to make today
Also of course if you're one of "those people" - some sort of minority or a woman or something - and don't loudly say conspicuously jingoistic shit that throws most other people that share your aberration under the bus, people will often assume you're a radical leftist. Unless of course radical leftists are the actual cause of your problems in some hypothetical argument being presented to you unprompted by someone who heard it on a podcast. The left is everyone and the left is no one
